Avid Pro Audio Community

Avid Pro Audio Community

How to Join & Post  •  Community Terms of Use  •  Help Us Help You

Knowledge Base Search  •  Community Search  •  Learn & Support


Avid Home Page

Go Back   Avid Pro Audio Community > Pro Tools Hardware > Pro Tools HDX & HD Native Systems (Mac)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-17-2013, 09:14 PM
Matt Hepworth's Avatar
Matt Hepworth Matt Hepworth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Utah
Posts: 423
Default Too much latency with HDN at 44.1

I just got HDN to check it out and see if it works as a possible replacement for TDM.

At 32 buffer I'm getting issues on my 8 CPU (16 cores in PT) Mac Pro. CPU errors every few seconds tracking.

HD I/O interface.

At 64k buffer it just has too much latency. Sounds weird and phasey. 1 EQ and 1 Comp plugin. Delay comp confirms 0 samples latency.

I run 44.1. Just not working. Too much latency. LLM sounds right, but no plugins.

Plugs used were Ren EQ6 and VComp.

Latency chart - http://www.waves.com/support/tech-specs/plugin-latency

Zero plugin latency. Too much actual latency. 64 buffer. 44.1. HDN. HD I/O.

Any advice?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-17-2013, 09:49 PM
albee1952 albee1952 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: nashville
Posts: 35,011
Default Re: Too much latency with HDN at 44.1

Maybe you missed some system tweaks? In theory, HDN at the 128 buffer SHOULD have lower latency than a firewire interface at the 64 buffer. I run a DIGI003(firewire) and record at the 64 buffer(usually at 48K, but sometimes at 44.1K) and have rarely heard any mention of latency, unless I space out and leave delay comp ON to do a quick overdub, while the session is using high-latency plugins. Wish I had more insight

I suggest checking your routing. Make sure nothing is double-bussed anywhere and if you route things thru AUX tracks for sub-grouping, maybe try with all your tracks assigned to the main outputs(I have heard of AUX tracks not being correctly compensated for).
__________________
Gigabyte X79/intel i7 3930K, 32GB RAM, DIGI003 Rack
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/...0sound%20works


The better I drink...the more I mix.....

BTW, my name is Dave, but most people call me.........................Dave
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-17-2013, 09:58 PM
Southsidemusic's Avatar
Southsidemusic Southsidemusic is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Stockholm - Sweden
Posts: 12,332
Default Re: Too much latency with HDN at 44.1

Exactly what Dave said above this post

We started with HD Native bundle with an Avid HD 8x8x8 i/o and used that on Mac pro 12 core with very impressive results. We even tracked and recorded a few of the billboard top 10 songs this past summer. That system and had a minimum of 100 tracks and arleast 75 plugins after bouce-ing down the VI's so we could apply the best plugins as the audio tracks makes a better workflow for us. If you have that kind of latency and issues there is something else going on with your setup, not the Native card.

We upgraded to a HDX2 in august and we LOVE that setup except the longing for more AAX-DSP plugins.

Best Regards
Christopher
__________________
Best Regards
Christopher

—————————————
South Side Music Group
WEBHOME
—————————————
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-17-2013, 10:05 PM
Matt Hepworth's Avatar
Matt Hepworth Matt Hepworth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Utah
Posts: 423
Default Re: Too much latency with HDN at 44.1

Hmmm....

No auxes. No other plugins. While I agree that it's less latency than FW, I can't imagine trying to track with it in a band situation.

I run an HD3 system normally. HDN just plain sounds WEIRD trying to track with. Latent and phasey.

I really hope I'm doing something wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-17-2013, 10:10 PM
Matt Hepworth's Avatar
Matt Hepworth Matt Hepworth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Utah
Posts: 423
Default Re: Too much latency with HDN at 44.1

The lack of AAX DSP (particularly Waves) is why I don't have any plans on going the HDX route.

Right now I'm thinking REALLY hard about staying with HD3.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-17-2013, 10:19 PM
Southsidemusic's Avatar
Southsidemusic Southsidemusic is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Stockholm - Sweden
Posts: 12,332
Default Re: Too much latency with HDN at 44.1

The lack of DSP plugins in PT11HD is somewhat sad but we managed to find alternatives for the Waves plugins and we also found a whole bunch of awesome Native Plugins we use nowadays so HDX 2 works for us but I read other posts like you said where they are disapointed and I can understand that completely.

Why not hang on to the TDM system for now if it works for you, the HD4 worked VERY well for us until we had to change that out and I have to say it was one of the more stable configs we ever used from Avid
__________________
Best Regards
Christopher

—————————————
South Side Music Group
WEBHOME
—————————————
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-17-2013, 10:54 PM
propower propower is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 2,203
Default Re: Too much latency with HDN at 44.1

Although I understand and agree with all the above responses --- I also totally agree with the OP. I only run at 96kHz/64 buffer for this reason. Performance is now solidly better and less latent than my old HD2 system.

----------------------
First the latency thing.....
Old HD system latency (assuming no plug ins are adding in) 2.4ms

HDN is:
96kHz I/O RT
64 samples ---- 1.80ms
128 ------------- 3.12ms
256 ------------- 5.8ms
512 ------------- 11.12ms
LLM ------------- 0.47ms (regardless of Buffer)

44.1kHz I/O RT
32 samples ----- 3.35ms
64 --------------- 4.80ms
128 -------------- 7.68ms
256 -------------- 13.52ms
LLM -------------- 1.9ms (regardless of Buffer)

SO: 44.1/64 is ~2X the latency you are used to. I find the world divided into two camps with virtually no overlap - either it bugs you or it doesn't.

-----------------------

Now the problem with Waves AAX64. I tested for a month and went around the park with Waves - I can not make them work at 96/64 or 128. CPU errors and play/rec stops. Ren Comp almost works - but note it adds its own 128 samples! If you go high enough buffer Waves works a lot better. Can't speak to 44.1 though! Since I went Waveless - no more CPU issues...

--------------------------

Things that work for me at 96/64

ALL AVID plug ins. I now have most and they are working and sounding great and all have low CPU footprint.
Softube (Classic, TLA and FET) - the new versions work very well with low CPU footprint.
Exponential Reverbs
Surprisingly -- NI K9 !!!
A few other choice plugs -
The message here is don't expect all AAX64 plugs to perform well at low buffers.

----------------

Lastly - to run low buffers at 96kHz I have to turn hyperthreading OFF (via preferences in Apples Xcode). I also find for lo buffer work Speed trumps cores. I use a 3.5GHz Late 2013 imac. - a side note - no usb hard drives - even usb3 was a problem for this system...

-------------------

I can't tell you I am right in your case (I have Thunderbolt you are likely PCIe -- I have Haswell imac you are MP - I have Blackmagic Thunderbolt hard drive dock - yours are internal -- etc...).
but this has taken me two months to sort out and I am finally error free! Back to working with my system rather than on it
__________________
2017 27" iMac 3.8GHz i5, 1TB SSD
Logic ProX, Studio One V4, PT current version, Apogee Ensemble TB
Musician: http://www.ivanlee.net/
Design Engineer: http://www.propowerinc.com/resume.html
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-18-2013, 01:41 AM
Drew Mazurek's Avatar
Drew Mazurek Drew Mazurek is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 11,553
Default Re: Too much latency with HDN at 44.1

Try dropping the # of cores down to 15 or 7.
__________________
www.drewmazurek.com

Mixing and Mastering click here to get started.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-18-2013, 07:09 AM
YYR123's Avatar
YYR123 YYR123 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 13,697
Default Re: Too much latency with HDN at 44.1

Hard drive speed is something to consider as well -
__________________
Daniel
HDX - PT12.5.1 - HD I/O 16x8x8
Win10-Pro (v1709)- 6 Core i7-6850k - ASUS X99 Deluxe ii
D-Command Main Unit - 'Ole Blue


http://www.sknoteaudio.com/ plugins rock and are affordable.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-18-2013, 08:56 AM
RyanC RyanC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 647
Default Re: Too much latency with HDN at 44.1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Hepworth View Post
Hmmm....

No auxes. No other plugins. While I agree that it's less latency than FW, I can't imagine trying to track with it in a band situation.

I run an HD3 system normally. HDN just plain sounds WEIRD trying to track with. Latent and phasey.

I really hope I'm doing something wrong.
Hey Matt-

What is the rest of your monitoring signal flow and hardware? Phasey as in by itself or it's phasey when the cans blend with the sound happening acoustically in the room?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Automation latency when using plugins that have long latency pyrodave Pro Tools 11 2 01-27-2014 12:22 PM
omni/native latency vs mbox pro latency chrisdee Pro Tools HDX & HD Native Systems (Win) 34 03-30-2012 08:24 AM
Latency Issues - changing latency has no effect Kippa-Dee Pro Tools M-Powered (Win) 1 07-15-2010 09:39 PM
Piano VI's- Latency Latency!! MARVINBASS Virtual Instruments 5 04-27-2006 02:09 AM
Unity DS-1 and Latency... Anyone else feel the latency makes the Plugin unusable? Mt.Everest Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac) 7 08-26-2001 05:53 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:44 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited. Forum Hosted By: URLJet.com